Very interesting and pretty accurate read from 2012 predicting the events that would unfold in the Middle East after the US reaches a level of energy independence.......which we arguably have after the rapid expansion of domestic oil and natural gas production under the last 2 administrations combined with the lowering costs and increasing availability of renewables:
What Happens When America No Longer Needs Middle East Oil?
Some highlights from the article:
".................So there's a real possibility that Washington will go through the same East-of-Suez debate that London did in the 1960s. The Obama Administration's new Asia-Pacific military posture may be the first, tentative sign that America is losing its enthusiasm for securing Middle East oil supplies. Of course, everyone in the administration will vigorously reject any such interpretation. But just for fun, let's ask the question of who wins and who loses if America decides it's had enough of being the policeman on the beat in the Persian Gulf.
The biggest losers would be the Arab oil states grouped in the Gulf Cooperation Council, most of which are monarchies kept in power by a combination oil dollars and American military power. Despite their oil revenues, none of these countries except Saudi Arabia has the wherewithal to defend itself against military pressure from Iran if America leaves the stage -- or for that matter from Iraq, which has repeatedly laid claim to oil fields in Kuwait and other nearby states. The vacuum created by an American departure would force nations like Bahrain and Qatar to seek new military protectors, either by submitting to the influence of bigger regional powers or by reaching out to China.
The second category of losers would be the economies of East Asia, which the International Energy Agency says will be the main consumers of Persian Gulf oil in the years ahead. China, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan are heavily dependent on the flow of oil passing through the Strait of Hormuz, and yet do little to assure that flow is not disrupted by local tensions. If America pulls out of the Gulf, the nations of East Asia will either have to play a bigger military role in the Middle East, or find other sources of oil. America might have sufficient new-found reserves of fossil fuel to supply Japan and South Korea in an emergency, but concern about access to Persian Gulf oil would undoubtedly exacerbate tensions over who owns contested oil reserves in the South China Sea and elsewhere.
Israel too would likely be a big loser. Washington spends billions of dollars each year subsidizing the security of the Jewish state. The reason that isn't controversial even though Americans usually want to cut foreign aid ahead of every other type of federal spending is because it is hard to separate securing Israel from securing Middle East oil. The same U.S. military forces and programs that help protect Israel from Iranian missiles and Islamist terror groups also protect Arab oil-producing states. But if America's role in securing the oil were to wane, it would be harder to ignore the cost of defending Israel, and that might force Jerusalem to become more self-sufficient.
There would be plenty of other losers too, from the nations that depend on a steady flow of Middle East oil to stabilize global energy prices to the shippers that count on the Fifth Fleet for protection to the local companies that help sustain U.S. forces in the region. No doubt about it, a lot of players dependent on America's military presence in and around the Persian Gulf would be hurt if America went home. But there would be winners, too.
One big winner would be Iran, because it would no longer find its regional pretensions blocked by America's military. Although there are ethnic and religious differences separating Persians from their Arab neighbors on the western side of the Gulf, Iran's big population and economic resources over time could come to dominate the region. Homegrown terrorist groups might also thrive in America's absence, although Arab governments could feel freer to deal with them in the absence of American concepts about freedom and justice. The biggest winner of all, though, might be China's Peoples Liberation Army, which would have a compelling reason for extending its presence outside of East Asia in order to secure the Middle Kingdom's most important foreign sources of petroleum.
If you've stayed with me up this point, you're probably thinking something like, "Gee, this energy independence thing sure has a lot of potential downside." Well you're right -- if it becomes an excuse for pulling the joint force out of the Persian Gulf. But that doesn't mean it won't happen, because despite all the possible drawbacks, U.S. taxpayers would still benefit hugely from a scaling back of U.S. security commitments in the Middle East if that were accompanied by real self-sufficiency in energy. How much would they benefit? Potentially by a hundred billion dollars or more in annual budget savings as the military was downsized for a more limited role on the far side of the world.
If that sounds fanciful, then go read what the International Energy Agency says about America's rapidly improving energy outlook -- and try to keep in mind that the need for Persian Gulf oil is the main reason why the U.S. military showed up in the Middle East after having almost no role there for the first two centuries of the Republic's history."
